SD-10 Problem

[Ron Nossaman]

>Hi Don,
>              With respect, if the masking tape or felt was meant to be
>there, the manufacturer would install some thing similar from the get go.
>In my book it is a temporary fix at best.
>Muting the forward duplex, greatly reduces the projection, the groove in
>the forward bar, reduces sustain and power.
>If the hammer is too hard, you will have a very strong fundamental, and
>weak sustain on the partials.
>Determine which problem you are dealing with, then fix it if the customer
>want's the problem fixed.
>By all means give them a choice, but it should be the customers decision.
>Supported with a well informed opinion.
>regards Roger
>
>Roger Jolly


Hi Roger,
Who's well informed opinion is best? All of us highly educated
professionals seem to be working from considerably different accumulated
experience and data sets, so who makes the decision? I seem to remember a
phrase or two to the effect that us field techs don't have the luxury of
redesigning the thing, but have to work with what we have. As a working
field tech, I've braided off front duplexes without a qualm. After
explaining to a customer with a noise complaint, where their noise is
coming from, and quoting approximate prices for "fixes" carrying different
time requirements and success probabilities against the expected
diminishment (or not) of the tonal "support" of the front duplex, the
decision is usually to take the quick and cheap expedient of muting the
thing. It's reversible, and given the time (bought by the immediate
elimination of the noise they complained about in the first place) to mull
over the possibilities of getting that noise back (HOPEFULLY {no
guarantees} mutated into a supportive, rather than conflictive mode), they
have, by a fairly convincing majority of 100%, considered the process to be
a net gain and left the mute in. When it's a matter of annoyance
elimination/unrealized potential, most will opt for  the greatest relief
for the buck. 


Ron N